Parity Parity Parity. by John D. BlackReview by: C. Horace HamiltonSocial Forces, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Dec., 1942), pp. 241-242Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2570568 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 08:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:29:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LIBRARY AND WORKSHOP 241

work, The Culture of Cities, and especially in his Chapter V dealing with "The Regional Framework of Civilization" and Chapter VI on "The Politics of Regional Development."

One final criticism is allied with the first. It involves disagreement with the interpretative emphasis embodied in the concluding sentence of the study which reads:

The present development may be surpassed by other projects in size and in the value of services rendered; but it is doubtful if any other development will find greater justification from the economic and social points of view than the construction of the Boulder Canyon Project.

The economic and social program of the TVA certainly outstrips Boulder Canyon ten-to-one. For a justification of this statement see the lead- ing article in the April, 1937, American Sociological Review by the former chairman of the TVA board, Arthur E. Morgan, entitled "Sociology and the TVA"; also Jay Franklin's challenging study and account of the TVA entitled The Future is 0 rs, one of the Modern Age Books, 1939; likewise Dr. Clarence Louis Hodge's study of The TVA, A National Experiment in Regionalism, published by the American University Press, 1938. The re- viewer also had occasion to deal with this in an article in the American Journal of Sociology for November, 1938, entitled "Regionalism in Practice."

The above criticisms are in no way meant to detract from the careful and thorough scholarship of this work throughout, nor from the lucid and engaging style which permeates it as a whole. They are offered as variant measures of appraisal of certain fundamental socio-economic implica- tions which inevitably arise in conjunction with a major regional effort of the scope of the Boulder Canyon project.

PARITY PARITY PARITY. By John D. Black. Cam- bridge: Harvard Committee on Research in the Social Sciences, 1942. 367 pp.

The title to this book has a double meaning. First, it calls attention to the emphatic insistence of farm pressure groups on Parity for Agriculture which has been the battle cry of commercial farmers since the idea was first advanced in the early twenties. Second, it serves to show, from a broader point of view that Parity for Labor and Parity for Capital must be considered along with

Parity for Agriculture. A major objective of the book, the author states, is to help the three major groups come to "a good understanding-of the conditions within the other groups." In other words, the author is no narrow partisan pleading for more governmental aid to agriculture. Rather he is approaching the problem in an objective manner from the standpoint of the wellbeing of all groups in the nation. This point of view cannot be questioned on a theoretical basis but practical politicians and leaders of agricultural pressure groups will not likely agree with the con- clusions of this book. Yet such individuals, on the theory that "you cannot fool all the people all the time," will do well to give careful considera- tion to the facts presented which have been so carefully analyzed and interpreted. A policy for agriculture built on shaky facts and narrow reason- ing will likely hurt agriculture in the long run.

In the development of his subject, the author first gives the reader a brief orientation in farm politics, in the economic organization and status of agriculture, and in farm price control. These chapters are well written, easy to read, and set the stage for what is to follow. Next the evolution of parity is traced, and in this brief chapter, the reader will see the interesting things that happen when politics and statistics are mixed in dealing with a major economic problem. Politics is in a dominant position with statistics playing an essential but still minor role. For instance: (1) The Department of Agriculture has failed to release parity ratios which include interest and tax payments, possibly because such procedure would have reduced parity prices around 4 per- cent; (2) Barley and flue-cured tobacco growers put pressure on Congress in November 1940 and shifted the base period for tobacco parity prices from 1919-29 to the more favorable 1934-39. As the book was being written, pressure was being brought by farm representatives for raising farm prices to 110 percent of parity and for including farm wages, which were rising, in the index of prices paid by farmers. All of this, and similar political maneuvers, suggest that the agricultural parity problem is very much in the realm of sociology and political science. Statistics seem to serve at best as a means of justifying or ration- alizing whatever the pressure groups can get away with.

Several chapters of this book are given to a discussion of the relative real incomes of farmers

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:29:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

242 SOCIAL FORCES

and city people. The results of the analysis of this controversial question are not conclusive; but the author feels that even though the farmer's economic plight has been greatly exaggerated by the use of inadequate data, there are still good grounds for concluding that "in the long run, agricultural incomes have remained at too low a relative level." The author observes also that migration from farms since 1933 has been slower than the relative economic advantages in the city would warrant.

After showing up the more glaring weaknesses of the parity system as applied to agriculture, the author sets forth some alternative parity standards and suggests practical measures for regulating prices in war time, prevention of inflation, and for post-war adjustments. He doesn't believe that farm people can improve their conditions by holding up consumers, and suggests as alterna- tives: heavier migration from farms, large farm units in low income areas, increased consumption of the more nutritive farm products by all low income groups, a greatly strengthened surplus commodity and school lunch program for low income families, government loans without re- course, and more effort on the part of farm families to improve their living by direct methods rather than through strictly commercial farming.

The author's treatment of the question of the farmer's interest in wages does not make sense and seems to be inconsistent with some of his major conclusions. Perhaps the difficulty lies in his failure (because of inadequate data) to differentiate properly between wages and other forms of nonagricultural income, much of which go to high income groups. Perhaps he would agree that an increase in the wages of the low income groups would be just as effective in increasing farm prices and farm income as would an increase in nonagricultural employment. It seems that it is a mal-distribution of nonagricultural income that is most detrimental to agricultural markets. The policy of cutting prices of industrial goods instead of raising wages would certainly be welcome, but it would be ineffective unless the bigger problem of wealth distribution was also attacked. Huge salaries and other forms of unearned income are in any case incompatible with a policy of full employ- ment, low prices and reasonable wages. The author, to say the least, has left the reader just a little confused on this point.

In conclusion it must be said that this is one of

the most valuable books that has come from the pen of John D. Black. It represents the practical fruit of years of study and careful deliberation of a competent scholar. It takes economics off the pedestal and places it at the service of the Nation at a time when it is most needed. It should be read far and wide by the partisans of both industry and agriculture, so that there will indeed be a better understanding on the part of each of the other's point of view.

C. HORACE HAMILTON North Carolina State College

PLANNING FOR AMERICA. By George B. Galloway and Associates. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1941. 713 pp. $3.00.

Written with the expressed purpose of presenting an over-all picture of the status of social and economic planning in America, the book does just that. But in very adequately doing so, it clears none of the confusion as to actual planning methods, aims, practices, and philosophies cloud- ing the American scene today.

The author and his associates for the most part do an admirable job of reporting. In the seven sections of the thirty-three chapter book, the planning of resources, together with economic, area, and defense planning receive expert analysis by specialists dosely connected with the respective fields. Particularly stimulating are the chapters by Theodore J. Kreps, "Planning Industrial Policies," and by William F. Ogburn, "Technology and Planning."

It seems to be the consensus of the twenty-eight contributors that it is no longer a question as to whether or not we as a nation shall plan; today it is a full grown dilemma as to how planning shall be implemented.

It is on this point that the book might have made a real step forward in the field of planning literature. Even though Mr. Galloway hinted at the point, no effort was made to develop any type of synthesis of the many diverse themes of planning. Instead, the book followed the now overworked pattern of presenting unrelated essays on separate topics.

In this connection, the section on "area planning" failed glaringly to develop adequately the potentialities of functional integration of national, state, and regional planning. Much of this section degenerated into a standardized and very unrevealing group of essays.

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.55 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:29:08 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions